MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132904923

Identifying the Experiences of Self-identifying Men with a History of Traumatic Brain Injury When Re-Entering the Community After Incarceration

2024· dissertation· W7132904923 on OpenAlexaff
Parisa Dastoori

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchFeelingCriminal justiceReentryPopulationQualitative propertyLived experiencePoison controlPovertySuicide prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic Brain Injury is prevalent among individuals with lived experience of incarceration; however, it is often neglected as one of the potential contributing factors of this population's involvement with the criminal justice system. Limited qualitative research has explored the experiences of this population, creating a gap in understanding how they experience reentry into society after release. To address this gap, a secondary analysis of qualitative data was conducted to describe the experiences of this population during reentry based on a purposive sample of 10 participants from the John Howard Poverty Reduction project. Conventional qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach was used to analyse the data. Five common patterns emerged from the data including unmet basic needs, health challenges, supportive social network, mixed feelings on release, and future plans. The findings from this study may be useful for improving services facilitating the reentry process for this population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis→French-language works237,207→